Quote: (06-14-2014 05:32 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:42 PM)solo Wrote:  

I also understand that there are practical problems associated with free immigration if you consider the interests of US citizens. But that doesn't change the fact that denying entrance to people in need of coming to the US is dishonorable and hypocritical considering how the US government in the past paid no such consideration to the Natives when deciding the immigration quotas.

In any case, if the US had stayed true to its founding principle of small government, it wouldn't have much of a Welfare State and immigration would be closer to a non-issue. Instead I suspect Americans now face a higher tax rate than what the English forced upon them and which was one of the reasons for their quest for independence.

Claiming that it's dishonorable to nationally emplace practices that will sustain the country is pretty baseless. You second best supporting argument is using the past which can't be changed regardless so it's a non-issue.

This particularly stands out; "But that doesn't change the fact that denying entrance to people in need of coming to the US is dishonorable and hypocritical..."

You reasoning is absolutely parallel to saying any capable country should accept refugees and immigrants regardless of number or costs because they simply could benefit from it. Should we amass C-130's to haul in Iraq, Syria, Haiti, Egypt, Central African Republic and Sudan because our economic and civil situation is better?

I think the wording of your posts betray that you haven't understood my argument(s). Any capable country shouldn't have to accept immigrants regardless of number or costs. My argument is that I don't sympathize with descendants of people whose governments illegally and/or immorally took took the land they are now living in without any regard to the indigenous populations, when they complain about the same thing happening to them. (Actually it's not the same thing - todays inhabitants are not being treated even nearly as badly as the indigenous were).

If they won't offer todays immigrants the same opportunity their ancestors were given, at the very least recognize the disparity (which Pacesetter20 and Im sure others do from the start without me having to convince them of it).

You don't have to *agree* with my argument, at least understand it though. Cheers.

The human race is at least 100,000 years old. It is very likely the Native Americans simply conquered the natives that were there when they came to the America's 12,000 years ago.

The history of all humans is one of conquest and being conquered. I am of Anglo-Saxon descent. My ancestors were slaves (and lots of my ancestors butchered) to the Romans and conquerors of the British Isles and North America.

Quote:Quote:

I think the wording of your posts betray that you haven't understood my argument(s). Any capable country shouldn't have to accept immigrants regardless of number or costs. My argument is that I don't sympathize with descendants of people whose governments illegally and/or immorally took took the land they are now living in without any regard to the indigenous populations, when they complain about the same thing happening to them. (Actually it's not the same thing - todays inhabitants are not being treated even nearly as badly as the indigenous were).

This gets to the heart of Solo's worldview. Solo recognizes immigration restriction is an integral part of a nation retaining its heritage, culture, and norms, but doesn't like American's standing up for themselves since they are descendants of people who acted like humans have acted for a hundred thousand years.

Basically, Solo thinks Americans should prostrate themselves to third worlders for the sins of their ancestors. Solo just hates American's. No need to sweat him. Lots of people hate me for being blond haired, tall, American, intelligent, or whatever. People hate the successful. People hate strength. They see beauty, culture, and love, and it fills them with envy.

When I have a beautiful girl on my arm this crap happens all the time. The envious losers line up to take a shot. Solo is rationalizing his hate, but at the end of the day, he has to live with being an envious piece of garbage who uses history to justify his hatred.

O, I understand your argument. I should bend over today, because my ancestors were evil. Not going to happen. Cheers.

Quote: (06-17-2014 10:04 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

The human race is at least 100,000 years old. It is very likely the Native Americans simply conquered the natives that were there when they came to the America's 12,000 years ago.

The history of all humans is one of conquest and being conquered. I am of Anglo-Saxon descent. My ancestors were slaves (and lots of my ancestors butchered) to the Romans and conquerors of the British Isles and North America.

Quote:Quote:

I think the wording of your posts betray that you haven't understood my argument(s). Any capable country shouldn't have to accept immigrants regardless of number or costs. My argument is that I don't sympathize with descendants of people whose governments illegally and/or immorally took took the land they are now living in without any regard to the indigenous populations, when they complain about the same thing happening to them. (Actually it's not the same thing - todays inhabitants are not being treated even nearly as badly as the indigenous were).

This gets to the heart of Solo's worldview. Solo recognizes immigration restriction is an integral part of a nation retaining its heritage, culture, and norms, but doesn't like American's standing up for themselves since they are descendants of people who acted like humans have acted for a hundred thousand years.

Basically, Solo thinks Americans should prostrate themselves to third worlders for the sins of their ancestors. Solo just hates American's. No need to sweat him. Lots of people hate me for being blond haired, tall, American, intelligent, or whatever. People hate the successful. People hate strength. They see beauty, culture, and love, and it fills them with envy.

When I have a beautiful girl on my arm this crap happens all the time. The envious losers line up to take a shot. Solo is rationalizing his hate, but at the end of the day, he has to live with being an envious piece of garbage who uses history to justify his hatred.

O, I understand your argument. I should bend over today, because my ancestors were evil. Not going to happen. Cheers.

hahaha^^^^ and your racism is spewing right before my eyes with this very post. So the fact that you're tall and blonde you're automatically successful? and people are envy of you? Wow! just wow!

I'm a proud American of Hispanic descent and no I don't hate Americans (I am one) and I completely disagree with you.

Wow...That's not what I said. I said this,

Quote:Quote:

Lots of people hate me for being blond haired, tall, American, intelligent, or whatever. People hate the successful. People hate strength. They see beauty, culture, and love, and it fills them with envy.

I said people hate the successful. I said people hate me, just for how I look. There are white people who hate black people just for being black.

I happen to be moderately successful financially, and I'm sure some people hate me for that. I'm not that successful financially though. And nowhere did I say being blonde, tall or intelligent equals success. There are many extremely intelligent people who are lazy and unsuccessful. I said people hate me for those things. This is true. I know that there are places in Argentina where I would get killed for how I look, one of my childhood buddies from there has told me so.


Exactly how is my racism spewing right before your eyes? Am I racist for being blonde? Sheesh...get some reading comprehension. There are lots of proud Americans of Hispanic descent. Didn't say there wasn't. A lot of people from the southwest are proud Americans of hispanic descent, many of them ant-illegal immigration too.

I'm sure there are a few people who envy me, but I didn't say that. I said people hate me for how I look and that people hate and envy the strong and successful.

Stop putting words in my mouth.

Edit: Pro tip Midwest. Generally only feminists say, "Wow, just wow!" I get what I said excited you, but think of something more original.

Also, I really don't understand how anything I said was racist. I said how I looked. Is just being of european descent racist now?

Edit 2: So, basically without refuting my point about Solo's doublespeak, you just slandered me by calling me racist and then put words in my mouth saying that I think I'm successful for how I look. Fuck off.

Edit 3: Because it did flow together, to be clear, I wasn't saying looks equal success. This is the philosophy of NAZI's, black supremacists, among other "supremacist" groups. What I was saying was people hate you, no matter how you look, oftentimes just for how you look. Then they justify this by using history, or your ancestors did it first, or your religion. This is exactly what Solo was doing. This kind of stuff is the justification for genocide, slavery, etc.

Quote: (06-17-2014 09:51 AM)solo Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 05:32 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

Quote: (06-14-2014 04:42 PM)solo Wrote:  

I also understand that there are practical problems associated with free immigration if you consider the interests of US citizens. But that doesn't change the fact that denying entrance to people in need of coming to the US is dishonorable and hypocritical considering how the US government in the past paid no such consideration to the Natives when deciding the immigration quotas.

In any case, if the US had stayed true to its founding principle of small government, it wouldn't have much of a Welfare State and immigration would be closer to a non-issue. Instead I suspect Americans now face a higher tax rate than what the English forced upon them and which was one of the reasons for their quest for independence.

Claiming that it's dishonorable to nationally emplace practices that will sustain the country is pretty baseless. You second best supporting argument is using the past which can't be changed regardless so it's a non-issue.

This particularly stands out; "But that doesn't change the fact that denying entrance to people in need of coming to the US is dishonorable and hypocritical..."

You reasoning is absolutely parallel to saying any capable country should accept refugees and immigrants regardless of number or costs because they simply could benefit from it. Should we amass C-130's to haul in Iraq, Syria, Haiti, Egypt, Central African Republic and Sudan because our economic and civil situation is better?

I think the wording of your posts betray that you haven't understood my argument(s). Any capable country shouldn't have to accept immigrants regardless of number or costs. My argument is that I don't sympathize with descendants of people whose governments illegally and/or immorally took took the land they are now living in without any regard to the indigenous populations, when they complain about the same thing happening to them. (Actually it's not the same thing - todays inhabitants are not being treated even nearly as badly as the indigenous were).

If they won't offer todays immigrants the same opportunity their ancestors were given, at the very least recognize the disparity (which Pacesetter20 and Im sure others do from the start without me having to convince them of it).

You don't have to *agree* with my argument, at least understand it though. Cheers.

I won't fall for attempts and condescending tone, or claiming I misunderstood what was clearly stated. This isn't an argument, but I won't go easy when the topic is not trivial at all.

You're arguing on your merits, so present better examples in support of your angle.

Using the part of your post that I bolded, I'll compare the Guatemalan/Mexican border concerning Mexico's actions that toward Guatemalan immigration is parallel to the US response, except Mexico is actually harder on them.

It's also strange how you view yourself so removed from this situation. You're looking down on nose at the opposing viewpoint as if you're not equally affected by the consequences.

"If they won't offer todays immigrants the same opportunity their ancestors were given, at the very least recognize the disparity"

Ok, here's my take and some food for thought on why I can't even comprehend disparity and immorality as large points in your argument.

Ok, you've stated several times that history was immoral in your eyes. Morality differs from person to person and is subjective. Stop going on about it trying to press your view on others if you won't provide better refuting points.

An illegality can't occur when there isn't a legal mechanism in place concerning that situation. Read more American history.

Beyond that, it's critical to give recognition to the existence of efforts to preserve native American culture and people. There aren't many similar efforts by advancing cultures.

There's nothing worse than someone who hates their own race (i.e. solo in this thread, a professed self-loathing white man).

You're even worse than a male feminist in my eyes. At least most of those guys are just misguided and trying to get pussy. Someone who hates his own race is literally defective in the worst way, right up there with homosexuals and transgender freaks who are incapable of reproduction. Self-hatred of one's own race is a similarly dead-end genetic proposition, and is maladaptive in every regard, an extremely toxic ideology. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from racial self-loathing by people of any race. No one should feel the need to hate their own race, and that goes for people of all colors.

Look at this thread and contrast the attitude of MidWest, a proud Hispanic/Latino, with that of solo, a self-loathing white. It's absolutely pathetic to watch solo write these essays that amount to little more than "My race sucks! We don't deserve anything we have." Meanwhile, MidWest is behaving in the normal and admirable human manner and is arguing strongly for his people to take everything they can get. Is it little wonder that Latinos are making such inroads in this country? How many self-loathing Mexicans do you know? I've never even heard of such a thing.

I would recommend all self-loathing whites just do themselves a favor and commit suicide if you really think that white people are the worst thing to ever happen to the world.

Sums up how I feel when I talk to a lot of self-loathing Brits. I can't believe this is my people is my general feeling. So many Brits have that hunched shoulders, mopey, defeatist look to them.

Western/European civilization does seem to be the only civilization which has evolved to the point where it hates itself (cultural Marxism) and wants to go extinct.

If this can provide a light at the end of the tunnel, I used to strongly identify as a liberal, socialism-leaning person myself. I wanted unravel the mystery as to why racial strife and unresolved, economic disparity continued. I devoted myself to honest, unwavering truth searching. You could call it being redpill on national history. My current view of self identifying as a moderate and against the majority of the handouts and amnesty as I once did is a result of facts coming to light.

Quote: (06-17-2014 01:25 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

If this can provide a light at the end of the tunnel, I used to strongly identify as a liberal, socialism-leaning person myself. I wanted unravel the mystery as to why racial strife and unresolved, economic disparity continued. I devoted myself to honest, unwavering truth searching. You could call it being redpill on national history. My current view of self identifying as a moderate and against the majority of the handouts and amnesty as I once did is a result of facts coming to light.

Yes, feminist liberalism sounds good to young people. "We shouldn't have to work so hard" "the rich should share more" "we should be more free to do as we please".

The thing is, all these things might very well be true, in fact I believe they are all true. We all should be more free, rather than working our lives away to make someone else rich all so we can retire at 68 and die at 70. And for this to come true, the rich would need to share more.

But this will not be the result of a liberal feminist socialist govt. In fact the opposite comes true under socialism. Socialism allows the rich to game the system even more and crush the middle class.

The only way for us to be free as men is to have as little govt. in our lives as possible. And as you look into it, and research it, and put it to the real world test, you see that socialism is a disaster.

Quote: (06-17-2014 10:04 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

The history of all humans is one of conquest and being conquered. I am of Anglo-Saxon descent. My ancestors were slaves (and lots of my ancestors butchered) to the Romans and conquerors of the British Isles and North America.

Actually, since you're blonde hair and blue eyed, your most direct ancestors were the Nordic Normans, who invaded England under Guillaume the Conqueror in the 1060's.

One of his policies was the eugenics program of "Prima Noctae," which said that all newlywed women were to sleep with a King/Duke on their wedding night. This had the effect of transfusing large amounts of Nordic DNA into the English population since the firstborn (usually the strongest, intelligent, and successful of all the offspring) were generally of Nordic descent.

In the long run, this created the blonde-haired blue-eyed nobility class of England that lasted for centuries, and was probably responsible for the world class domination the English had as one of the fiercest races, as a huge part of their ancestors were vikings.

To this day, the same Nordic DNA that came through Guillaume the Conqueror and his Nordic invaders can be found in many of the original inhabitants of Americans along the East Coast (both North and South).

Well, I'm blonde haired, brownish/greenish eyes. My dad and grandpa were were blonde haired blue eyed though.

The vikings got around Blue eye conquests predate vikings though. The prevalence in places like Morocco and the Balkans are likely due to conquests by the so called 'barbarians' who sacked Rome, Visigoths and other Goths, who came from Germany and maybe even Scandinavia pre-viking invasions. They themselves fleeing from Hun attacks in parts. They seem to have gotten a bad rep, even though they did not actually sack and pillage much, but in fact made efforts to preserve Roman art and culture and had advanced law, which for example gave married women individual property rights. Read more: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Visigoths.

People often ask what happened to the Vikings (and the previous Goths). They never went away but in fact quickly and willingly assimilate to the local culture. Normandy and the Normans were all but assimilated within 3 generations. A lot of people who are claimed by other countries are originally of Norse heritage. The great king Richard Lionheart who lead the crusades was a Norman, so was William the Conquerer who took England. Europe is in fact a lot more mixed than people think.

My ancestors came from Ireland and Sweden in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They came here legally.

Why am I and my ancestors held accountable for slavery of for taking the Indians land? That all occurred way before my ancestors left Europe. I think most Americans are similar.

Why am I told that my ancestors oppressed blacks or Indians, when that is simply not true?

Is it because I have a similar skin pigmentation as the people who did the oppressing?

That seems kind of stupid as well as racist. Blaming people solely on their skin pigmentation seems racist to me.

It shows that grassroots democracy isn't dead in America. Obviously Cantor is a tool of the oligarchs and his loss has shocked the establishment. So now they're trying to throw Eric Cantor under the bus, instead of acknowledging the issues (immigration, big business collusion) that decided this election.

Quote: (06-17-2014 01:02 PM)scorpion Wrote:  

There's nothing worse than someone who hates their own race (i.e. solo in this thread, a professed self-loathing white man).

You're even worse than a male feminist in my eyes. At least most of those guys are just misguided and trying to get pussy. Someone who hates his own race is literally defective in the worst way, right up there with homosexuals and transgender freaks who are incapable of reproduction. Self-hatred of one's own race is a similarly dead-end genetic proposition, and is maladaptive in every regard, an extremely toxic ideology. There is absolutely nothing to be gained from racial self-loathing by people of any race. No one should feel the need to hate their own race, and that goes for people of all colors.

Look at this thread and contrast the attitude of MidWest, a proud Hispanic/Latino, with that of solo, a self-loathing white. It's absolutely pathetic to watch solo write these essays that amount to little more than "My race sucks! We don't deserve anything we have." Meanwhile, MidWest is behaving in the normal and admirable human manner and is arguing strongly for his people to take everything they can get. Is it little wonder that Latinos are making such inroads in this country? How many self-loathing Mexicans do you know? I've never even heard of such a thing.

I would recommend all self-loathing whites just do themselves a favor and commit suicide if you really think that white people are the worst thing to ever happen to the world.

Killed it. Racial self-hatred is a disease, a mental pathology that must be stamped out. People like Solo are not the real problem though. Him and others who have bought into cultural marxism are just the weak willed, not the evil. The real enemies, the roots of the problem, can be found in the national institutions like the media, the academia, and increasingly the government. Those are the people who consiously and unceasingly pump the poison of leftist, anti-white propanda into our societies, and to whom weak-links like Solo here fall victim.

Quote: (06-17-2014 03:42 PM)Dusty Wrote:  

My ancestors came from Ireland and Sweden in the late 1800s and early 1900s. They came here legally.

Why am I and my ancestors held accountable for slavery of for taking the Indians land? That all occurred way before my ancestors left Europe. I think most Americans are similar.

Why am I told that my ancestors oppressed blacks or Indians, when that is simply not true?

Is it because I have a similar skin pigmentation as the people who did the oppressing?

That seems kind of stupid as well as racist. Blaming people solely on their skin pigmentation seems racist to me.

That's exactly what it is. I can tell you from experience that it's racial battle for king of the hill in minority eyes that support those modes of thought.

Deep down they know it's racist, but they're suffering from their own cognitive dissonance. Media targeted at blacks and Latinos purposefully perpetuates this. Some are just hurt on the inside, many suffer feelings of inadequacy and find comfort in someone telling them that it's nothing to do with them.

Some are just genuinely racist and full of furious hate.

Quote: (06-17-2014 06:21 AM)solo Wrote:  

cool guy,

"Was knowledge not available to other countries? Did the USA keep information away from other countries by not allowing them to buy books or translate materials? What was so special about the 18th century that made it the MAGIC moment when all countries could accumulate knowledge but countries founded in 1820 couldn't accumulate it?"

You have not understood my argument. Go back and read from my first post in this thread again. I'm pretty sure the ancient Greeks used slaves, which I think was one of the reasons that allowed them to sit around all day and philosophize. Obviously the Greeks who had their peak thousands of years ago had access to less knowledge and technology than America in the 18th, 19th and 20th centuries. Consequently, you can't compare Ancient Greece with USA and say "well other countries used slaves as well so how come they weren't as advanced?".

***What % of Greece actually used slaves? So because o few philosophers had slaves that means everyone had them? Did slavery help them or hurt them in the short term/long term? We have more philosophers now than any other time yet we have no slavery. Slavery doesn't equal philosophy. They had it because they were backward ancient people with a many interesting thinkers in a society that produced abundance so that they may have time to think and not produce food.

"Is Russia warmer than the UK? Is Mongolia warmer than France? How does this make sense? Didn't Egypt have more wealth than all of Europe at one time?"

I mentioned climate as a possible factor among many. Not a be all - end all.

***Climate has no factor in innovation as ancient civilizations of the past flourished in fertile valleys that were temperate zones not in the arctic. Siberian people are spread out and live as in ancient times herding reindeer and cattle living in wigwams or tents. It is a VERY primitive way of living as I used to live like that in the Army in Alaska at Ft. Wainwright. We had to acclimate to the terrain we were in -60 sometimes -80 Fahrenheit living in tents and sleeping bags canteens with frozen water no way these people just don't know any better.

"What was it that made them innovate?"

There are lots of possible reasons for that.

***Exactly changes culture, open to new ideas, seeking information, organizing, yes!

"What part of their culture made them have a strong work ethic?"

Obviously you didn't bother to read my post properly. I mention one part of the culture right in the next bullet point.

***Yes but what part of their culture changed? Why did Europe surpass every other continent in power especially the English that over 1/4 of the world speaks English as a first or second language but the growth in Chinese and Arabic is mostly from large birth rates showing low growth rates.

"Why is this? When did this change? Was there ever a time where Christian nations were behind Islamic ones or Protestant behind Catholic ones and if there was does this make your point invalid?"

Yes, I think so. The West were behind in many areas at one point. My point is still valid since I was comparing modern Christianity with modern Islam.

***At one point Europeans realized that they had to organize and compromise with each other rich and poor, young and old, Catholic and Protestant, you get the picture? In Africa and Latin America this never happened. Africans are still at with heavy internal tribal wars as well as American Indian groups about the only thing they can agree on is guilt tripping whites into giving up handouts via the Bureau of Indian Affairs, United Negro College Fund, the National Association of Colored People, etc. Think about how PC the world is that these three organizations still use the word Indian for Native American, and Negro/Colored for African American, they don't have to change their name but this organization does http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/paten...ans-061814

"Were they the only ones to close their borders?"
No. The benefits of free trade are sometimes exaggerated Im just saying it might have been a reason for China declining.

***China completely closed itself off from the world even in it's state it is still a miserable place to live with a low per capita GDP one child policy will finish them off as well as their environmental destruction due to centralization.

"If whites have a higher IQ than other races why wouldn't that justify racism? If Asians have a higher average IQ then why are Asian countries behind European ones in per capita GDP and not the other way around?"

Um, because there is something called basic human value which derives from other things than intelligence.
Also IQ differences between races have not been proven to my knowledge and is in my opinion in any case irrelevant when we discuss human value and human rights. For the record, I'm white and have met tons of non-whites who were much smarter than me.
Asia lags Europe because of possible other reasons. You need to read up on cause and effect.

***IQ differences between races hasn't been proven because it is politically expedient not to prove it this will all change once that industry collapses. Asia lags because they were a bunch of collectivist nuts who preferred embarrassing their college professors during the great leap forward in the 60's than they did being productive. I think it is true that the average Chinese or Japanese has a higher IQ but they always complain that they don't innovate enough because they don't have that creativity spark that Europeans have. The Japanese, Koreans and Chinese are VERY race realist something I find refreshing and honest as I don't have to deal with my fellow Latino's who have a chip on their shoulder the size of Texas or disingenuous White liberals harping on about Asian racism while they themselves are constantly thinking about race. It's been an open secret that China has a eugenic program going on in their country and the information they have been putting out about genetics and intelligence is fascinating. Although I feel eugenics is bad for the country it's practiced all the time when couples get sperm to fertilize an egg or look for an egg for themselves they look for intelligence and good looks as a combination for their future child. So I don't think we can completely look at them with judgement. They also copy a lot of their high tech weaponry from purchased Russian equipment and their first aircraft carrier was purchased from Russia so this is something that has been happening for a long time.

"[Niall Ferguson is a politically correct boob. If it comes out on PBS, BBC or a major network it is PC bullcrap why didn't South Americans have property rights? Are all South American countries the same did Argentina, Brazil and Peru have the same structure in their governments when it came down to property rights?"

I don't agree with everything Ferguson says. Your question seems to imply yet again that you haven't quite understood that a social phenomena can have multiple causes.

***I am saying that you won't get the truth from the mainstream media as Ferguson is a bought and paid for illuminati whore. Funded by PBS and satanic foundations.

"WTF?"
"No you haven't"

Now you're just trolling

***I can't help it sorry bro but your just so irritatingly PC I understand though and I'll take your arguments more seriously as I'm trying now.

"How was it illegal for the USA to take land from the American Indian? Was there an ICC that would take them to task with a world police? Where is your basis of this illegality? Was it legal then for the Olmec's to take over the Toltec's, then the Aztec's afterward? Did the law only apply to Europeans and not the American Indian? What about Arab and Turkish pirates who plundered the Mediterranean sea for slaves and loot can Italians take them to court? Why was it immoral for Europeans to conquer American Indians if they had been conquering each other for so long even taking each other as slaves and wiping each other out completely? In the wild might makes right and in a world with limited resources this is the law you are typing this with a full belly and in a climate controlled room with police protection this world is very different from the world the settlers knew. The island of Manhattan was purchased for some beads, mirrors and trinkets so they got something in return for much of the land the settlers took as it was purchased in fair trade for horses, whiskey, rifles, etc."

The absence of an ICC is irrelevant. The basis for the illegality is found in historic facts. The government killed, marginalized, starved and deceived the Natives and took their land. Sometimes agreements of deportations were made (which the Natives were pretty much forced to accept) but then broken by the government. Read Bury My Heart At Wounded Knee, for instance. Some of the questions you pose in the above paragraph I have already answered in this thread and as for the other questions, I'm sure you can figure out what my answer to them would be as well.

***For it to be illegal there has to be a written law and some type of authority to uphold it like on the show "True Blood" they talk about the authority all the time some super duper vampire who becomes a politician. It may be wrong but NOT illegal they didn't break any law. The law of nature is "might makes right", "survival of the fittest". When European whites weren't fit they almost got wiped out by the black plague and pirate slave ships from North Africa and Turkey. Once they got their shit together they made mincemeat of those places and had a huge rebirth conquering large parts of the world, remaking them in their image even creating excess population that peopled the continents.

Would the purchase of Manhattan hold up in court? Or would it be found to be invalid and comparable to tricking a kid into selling you a car for peanuts? (Honest question - I don't know the answer).

***In court today I don't know but there are people who sell their soul for something equivalent sometimes to a corporation or for a woman. Beads, mirrors and trinkets were probably very valuable to the Inhabitants of Manhattan so in their court it would hold up they probably thought they were ripping off the Europeans who made that deal and laughed about it afterward thinking to themselves "stupid Euros". In Mexico City the oligarch Carlos Slim Helu purchase the local version of times square and when they asked a citizen what she thought of the purchase she said the same as the Indians "how can he buy this if I'm standing here I don't feel like he really owns it" so the cycle keeps going.

"Which American Indian Tribes didn't kill each other or never had to kill whether in self defense or survival of the fittest? Any citations or proof? Is self defense murder? Was there a time when American Indians could live in a Garden of Eden or were they sometimes tempted to take from another tribe?"

You're the one who are trying to use internal Indians fightings to justify US government killing them. So you carry the burden of proof and should prove that
1) all Indians who were killed by the government were murderers themselves and
2) that murdering a murderer is always morally justifiable, especially under the horrific circumstances the Indians found themselves in and which forced them to fight back.

Good luck! Luck

***Justifiable homicide/self defense. When you don't have to kill them just buy them off. If they trespass on your land then at the time you kill them. They lived off their crops if they were stolen then they starved. If the US government wanted to kill off every American Indian they could have. Was it possible to kill every last American Indian, if it was then why didn't they do it and save themselves the trouble. If Euro's were SO RACIST why didn't they kill each and every last one of them? There was no economic benefit in the US to have them like in Mexico S.America where they had an encomienda system.

"This still doesn't explain why they are poorer or what problems they have. At one time Argentina was the 4th wealthiest country in the world and challenged the US for hemispheric supremacy yet now they are a basket case with a history of coups and hyperinflation. Is all that the fault of the US? The first university in the hemisphere was in Mexico City the UNAM not Harvard in fact it had about a 70 year head start over Harvard so why is it totally overlooked now? Did the USA not do those things in Asia or Europe? Support coups, blockade or invade them? We bombed civilians in Dresden and they rebuilt it we nuked Hiroshima and Nagasaki and 40 years later they try to conquer us with money. Didn't we treat Germany and Japan FAR worse than Latin America yet a generation later they challenge us again. Shit you can make the argument that Germany conquered Europe with the Euro now and they were bombed, invaded, partitioned and had their president forced to commit suicide yet they still are very powerful."

Libertarians love to bring up how Argentina was once one of the richest countries in the world and how socialism destroyed that. Socialism was an important negative factor but doesn't tell nearly the whole story. Argentina became rich mostly because they killed most of the non-Whites (who were poor) and replaced them with Spanish land-owners (who were very rich). Obviously that instantly made the country richer in materialistic terms. Then a second wave of immigrants from Italy started coming to the Argentina which at one point even outnumbered the Argentinians/Spanish. They were poor and easy to manipulate and also carried with them a culture of corruption from Italy. Perfect for the elite who went on to divide and conquer them. Which is why so see such stark political antagonism in the country now and in the 20th century.

***Argentina's economy was based on agriculture and commodities not industry back then so it would've spiked with the worlds economy. Does massive immigration make a country poorer? Is that what you are saying?
Easy to manipulate? Southern Italians no?

Even if you bomb all the infrastructure in Japan, Germany and the US as well as killing a large percentage of their populations, they will still retain their human capital. Other parts of the world don't have as much human capital and therefore are more easily trapped in poverty and other problems.

***Human capital like IQ? Or cultured people who work hard and save their money?

"You haven't disproved anything the white man has heaped more good than bad just like any other population around the world. integrating economies, creating value there is nothing special about the white mans evil its no bigger or smaller than anyone else's the only difference is that they have been able to touch more people good or bad for a variety of reasons that can't be explained through simple PC propaganda since PC makes you and me stupid. There have been larger empires than the USA that didn't produce anything of value like the Mongolians the difference is the USA actually created something while they didn't."

You are right the white man has done good and bad things. The white man has systematically heaped misery on other peoples, but he's also systematically done good things. It's obviously not all black and white. I was merely refuting Samseau's claim which I interpreted to be just that.

*** I understand but its been disproportionately good as I love having a full belly, air conditioning, plumbed homes, jet airplanes and chubby blondes (skinny ones are OK too) and they all come from white people.

You can say what you want about it's validity but I believe Protestant Christianity had a lot to do with building up the prosperity of the United States. Nothing like instilling the fear of God in a people to get them to work hard. Max Weber wrote about this (The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism). It explains Northern/Southern Europe as well as North/South America. That plus the legal system/property rights and climate in the days before air conditioning covers most of it, I'd say.

Solo said:

"Then a second wave of immigrants from Italy started coming to the Argentina which at one point even outnumbered the Argentinians/Spanish. They were poor and easy to manipulate and also carried with them a culture of corruption from Italy. Perfect for the elite who went on to divide and conquer them. Which is why so see such stark political antagonism in the country now and in the 20th century."

Man that's fucked up to say. Cosa Nostra's corruption is different than Sicilian culture and southern Italian culture.

Inadvertently, you said something really racist though you may have not known it. See now why it's important to lay off the moral superiority and finger pointing compared to objective reasoning?

The establishment is so scared now that even Hillary Clinton wants to send the El Salvadoran refugee children back home.

Quote: (06-18-2014 12:32 PM)TonySandos Wrote:  

That's exactly what it is. I can tell you from experience that it's racial battle for king of the hill in minority eyes that support those modes of thought.

Deep down they know it's racist, but they're suffering from their own cognitive dissonance. Media targeted at blacks and Latinos purposefully perpetuates this. Some are just hurt on the inside, many suffer feelings of inadequacy and find comfort in someone telling them that it's nothing to do with them.

Some are just genuinely racist and full of furious hate.

U.S. prisons are probably the most honest social environments in the U.S. because you strip away all pretension and social etiquette. What's exposed is the actual deep seated anger and resentment between all races in the U.S. People hate each other across racial lines in prison and this is no coincidence. People naturally dislike each other across racial lines in the U.S. too. U.S. society led by liberal politics misconstrues this as a white vs minority thing but it's actuall an everyone vs everyone thing.

Every minority also dislikes other minorities. This is why you have idiots flying various flags of countries they've never been to. It's just small minded chest beating ethnic tribalism to show who's top dog on the hierarchy. This is why when minority neighborhoods overlap on each other there's almost always intense violence and sectarian type warfare.

If you look at the ethnography of various California neighborhoods you can see this balkanization clear as day. For the most part everyone wants to live with their own people and wants to fuck over everyone else who isn't the same as they are.

People always think that the civil rights movement happened because of MLK Jr. It's bullshit. It happened because the policy makers were frightened of having it blow into a full blown apartheid type environment or ethnic balkanization which could be exploited by the Soviets.

It looks like, more than anything, Cantor got bounced because he was an egotistical, effete dick who took his district and reelection for granted. His sense of entitlement was just a little too overweening.

He was too busy trying to become Speaker that he failed to realize he had to get reelected to Congress first.

Quote: (06-19-2014 02:50 PM)CrackerDaddy Wrote:  

It looks like, more than anything, Cantor got bounced because he was an egotistical, effete dick who took his district and reelection for granted. His sense of entitlement was just a little too overweening.

He was too busy trying to become Speaker that he failed to realize he had to get reelected to Congress first.

^^^This.

Quote: (06-17-2014 10:04 AM)KorbenDallas Wrote:  

The human race is at least 100,000 years old. It is very likely the Native Americans simply conquered the natives that were there when they came to the America's 12,000 years ago.

The history of all humans is one of conquest and being conquered. I am of Anglo-Saxon descent. My ancestors were slaves (and lots of my ancestors butchered) to the Romans and conquerors of the British Isles and North America.

Quote:Quote:

I think the wording of your posts betray that you haven't understood my argument(s). Any capable country shouldn't have to accept immigrants regardless of number or costs. My argument is that I don't sympathize with descendants of people whose governments illegally and/or immorally took took the land they are now living in without any regard to the indigenous populations, when they complain about the same thing happening to them. (Actually it's not the same thing - todays inhabitants are not being treated even nearly as badly as the indigenous were).

This gets to the heart of Solo's worldview. Solo recognizes immigration restriction is an integral part of a nation retaining its heritage, culture, and norms, but doesn't like American's standing up for themselves since they are descendants of people who acted like humans have acted for a hundred thousand years.

Basically, Solo thinks Americans should prostrate themselves to third worlders for the sins of their ancestors. Solo just hates American's. No need to sweat him. Lots of people hate me for being blond haired, tall, American, intelligent, or whatever. People hate the successful. People hate strength. They see beauty, culture, and love, and it fills them with envy.

When I have a beautiful girl on my arm this crap happens all the time. The envious losers line up to take a shot. Solo is rationalizing his hate, but at the end of the day, he has to live with being an envious piece of garbage who uses history to justify his hatred.

O, I understand your argument. I should bend over today, because my ancestors were evil. Not going to happen. Cheers.

I don't hate Americans at all. Not a single drop of hatred in me towards Americans. I think they are some of the nicest and most hospitable people you'll ever meet actually. I even have distant relatives who are Americans.
I said I was anti-American, which is quite different. America (and the EU too btw) in many ways are a negative influence in the world, including on their own populations. This is nearly indisputable at this point and something we discuss here everyday. Based on this, saying you're anti-American shouldn't be so controversial IMO. If America changed it would be better for everyone, including Americans. So being anti-American is not the same as hating Americans, if anything, it's the opposite. I am anti-EU too if this makes you feel any better.

I know America isn't going to "bend over" and this is a misconception of my argument. Here is what I think America should do:

Quote: (06-17-2014 06:35 AM)It_is_my_time Wrote:  

Solo, what would be your solution, given the current status of the USA and the world in general?

You eliminate the main driving forces behind migration:

1. Feminism. This will reboot birth rates and decrease the demand for cheap labor.

2. Poverty. This will decrease the will of people in poor countries to emigrate.
The goal is for poor countries to have a Welfare State of their own, rather than dismantling your own Welfare State. One of the greatest men who has ever lived, Bill Gates, is making great strides towards this on his own. (Strange how I can call an American White man one of the greatest who has ever lived given how I allegedly hate Americans and White men).

3. Wars. Regular wars and invasions, war on drugs, war on terror, coup d'états, what have you. This will lead to less refugees.

You should also get rid of the PC culture surrounding immigrants. Affirmative action etc. This is all I can think of right now.